Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:01 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19811
Video: The 1014 Rugby Analysis - Modern Rugby - Part 1 of 3 - An Overview

Interesting stuff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
I find it extremely worrying that youth teams are running these patterns and systems. They're not seeing anywhere near the same level of defence that the pros are, and the coach is effectively taking away decision making and not asking them to read the defence.

I did an assessment of a team that only does 1-3-3-1 last year and looking at what the forwards did...

Quote:
1st Half – 28 carries for 13 metres (0.78 metres per carry; longest 5; 18 carries 0 metres or behind the original territory gained)
2nd Half – 37 carries for 57 metres (1.54 metres per carry; longest 8; 12 carries for 0 metres or behind the original territory gained)



I truly believe the opportunity is there to be more creative and dynamic in attack, even with the structured defences that exist. Most of the pods do nothing by crash it up or play out the back and it's painfully obvious what's going to happen by their body language. I think the ABs are the best because it's not always so clear. Their forwards are much more skilled and dynamic than anyone else so defenders are often caught in two minds.

But it's safer for teams not so good to play 41 phases and hit a drop goal to win a match, if they don't eventually win a penalty that goes between the sticks or into the corner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22436
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
It probably shouldn't be surprising, but an American coaches group on facebook I belong to just LOVE that stuff (and there have been non-Yanks talking about how they use it as well ... Arg, Irish, Brit in Europe, iirc.)

As I said on the League thread, I think the next stage will be more complex defensive tactics - like how NFL teams will try a high-risk/reward blitz to get a sack - that will effectively kill the out-the-back play, making those forward decoy runners (i.e. often legalized blockers) go somewhere more useful. I think the most dynamic teams that aren't just going for the obvious crash ball - like, oh I don't know, the All Blacks and Kiwi sides in general - can unlock any defence because pretty much all of their players are carrying and passing threats. That's all you've ever needed to cause defenders to be sucked in, miss-read, over-read, over-commit, under-commit, etc. etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6867
Location: Madrid
Interesting stuff, I think it's ok for young teams to practice structures, the whole idea behind all of them is to open up space or a mis-match somewhere. This is where the great teams and players excel. With the way defences spread now a world class 9 is vital to a good attack, if he (or she) can see clearly what's going on a whip the ball into the right places you're gold.

The big difference I see between the ABs and other teams is their understanding of quick ball. This, no matter how much other things change, is the key to unlocking defences. It's all about who dictates the game. The ABs are also clever at gifting quick ball challenging teams to be organised enough to use it well, this often backfires against the Wobs who are very good at moving it into space, but a lot of teams will end up kicking after phase ball as their attack isn't realigning quick enough.

We coach a lot of structure but also constantly trying work on building the skills sets of all the players so as to be in the best position possible to take advantage of turnover ball which is still probably where the clearest point scoring opportunities still arise from in most games.

I love players like Aaron Smith for his ability to bring people into play, even players in front of him. Ben Smith is brilliant too, always thinking. He can be on the ground in a ruck when Smith picks up the ball and then 1s later take an inside ball from him, your head has to be working just as quick in D to cover this, Bender scored one like this against Oz last year I think.

There was even a good example in the weekend as a Tahs prop ran towards Hooper who was 10m in front of him and popped the ball to him once in front. Wasn't that incredible but the vision was there and now even props need to be able to see what unfolds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16678
Location: We'll Never Forget You Geordan D'Arcy
These guys getting any traction for their efforts?

Nevr knew until.recently that Gareth Dineen's big brother Len is one of the drivers along with Shane Byrne behind the Irish English vets charity game which has become a cracking feature of the Ireland v England 6 N weekends.

Proper oldschool rugby family. Good people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
Structure is important. You need people to know where it's best for them to be and their potential roles.

A gameplan is the problem i reckon. Forward pod, forward pod, loop play to the wing, repeat until something goes wrong for one team.

As a wasps supporter i obviously enjoy watching wasps, but the way they use the ball is joyous. Everyone is an option, if you're running a line you should expect the ball. They play what they see, whether it's out the back of the forwards pod or miss passes to the wing.

No idea how you easily coach that though... Guess more eyes looking for mismatches and communicating that effectively inside, rather than just waiting for your turn in the gameplan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
Raggs wrote:
Structure is important. You need people to know where it's best for them to be and their potential roles.

A gameplan is the problem i reckon. Forward pod, forward pod, loop play to the wing, repeat until something goes wrong for one team.

As a wasps supporter i obviously enjoy watching wasps, but the way they use the ball is joyous. Everyone is an option, if you're running a line you should expect the ball. They play what they see, whether it's out the back of the forwards pod or miss passes to the wing.

No idea how you easily coach that though... Guess more eyes looking for mismatches and communicating that effectively inside, rather than just waiting for your turn in the gameplan.


Not all the time, though ... they're probably the best in the AP when it's broken, but this is a random moment I cut from a highlight clip that shows a lack of this vision. https://youtu.be/hTEGXochTm4 (It's not recent, but they still do this from time to time.)

Structure should be a guideline, not a rule. The exploitable opportunity should always trump the pattern or structure. When there's a clear advantage, as in this case... get up flat and call the ball out.

The Aussies under Chieka are the most annoying to watch in this regard. Two forward pod crashes and move the ball down the wide channel. I have a series of clips for a future blog post where they've opted to go wide with 2/3rds of the width of the pitch and cut through teams with their big, fast and elusive backs. They'd be better off playing more like the ABs, imo, making better use of their talent in space.

I'm becoming like Jiffy, shouting "Numbers! Hands!" at my TV. :lol: :blush:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
Really not recent, that had ben Jacobs at 12 :). Cips and le Roux really drive the wide play. Opportunities will always be missed though.

Think we play a different structure now anyway with Blackett and Cips pulling the strings. I doubt cips would have missed that one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 1528
eldanielfire wrote:
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


I wouldn't take the extreme position. At U10, U12, if you don't give any structure at all, all the players will be within 5m of the ball. At best you'll get an all-in maul, but more likely the team that has the basic structure of holding an attacking line will run rings around you. So some structure is needed, you want to cover as much space as you can with your team. Once that basic structure is in place, you can then let them identify and exploit opportunities themselves. But even this benefits from giving them structured formats to use in their exploitation of opportunities: pick&go, scissor passes, crash ball, loop passes etc. all start with players being in the right position to execute the move.

So yes to structure, no to robotic game plans where everyone has a set task to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22436
Raggs wrote:
Structure is important. You need people to know where it's best for them to be and their potential roles.

A gameplan is the problem i reckon. Forward pod, forward pod, loop play to the wing, repeat until something goes wrong for one team.


That's fine for adult teams, but it stunts development for developing players at lower ages.

Quote:

As a wasps supporter i obviously enjoy watching wasps, but the way they use the ball is joyous. Everyone is an option, if you're running a line you should expect the ball. They play what they see, whether it's out the back of the forwards pod or miss passes to the wing.

No idea how you easily coach that though... Guess more eyes looking for mismatches and communicating that effectively inside, rather than just waiting for your turn in the gameplan.


It helps if players have better skill levels and technical ability. That means they focus more on what's in front of them rather then concentrating on holding the ball or making a pass. e.g. more brain power is reading the players because the skills are second nature. Also recognising when the spaces are opening up anywhere because you are used to unstructured play and so are conditioned to look for space and thus recognise it regularly in each instant rather than needing to keep processing and deciding if a certain moment is or isn't space is a big help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
I don't see how having a structure stunts development to be honest. It helps teach them where they should in general be looking to be. Forwards should be in carrying positions more often than not, backs should be spanning the width of the pitch. Planning out every phase is a problem, but having a basic structure to play within is surely essential?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22436
clydecloggie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


I wouldn't take the extreme position. At U10, U12, if you don't give any structure at all, all the players will be within 5m of the ball. At best you'll get an all-in maul, but more likely the team that has the basic structure of holding an attacking line will run rings around you. So some structure is needed, you want to cover as much space as you can with your team. Once that basic structure is in place, you can then let them identify and exploit opportunities themselves. But even this benefits from giving them structured formats to use in their exploitation of opportunities: pick&go, scissor passes, crash ball, loop passes etc. all start with players being in the right position to execute the move.

So yes to structure, no to robotic game plans where everyone has a set task to do.


By no structure I mean they should still be in a line or a diagonal as per attack or defense but no set positions after that. I frequently train various games where it's simple, 2 to a ruck and the next is scrum half, all the rest dependent where they are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22436
Raggs wrote:
I don't see how having a structure stunts development to be honest. It helps teach them where they should in general be looking to be. Forwards should be in carrying positions more often than not, backs should be spanning the width of the pitch. Planning out every phase is a problem, but having a basic structure to play within is surely essential?


At young age you develop players better by training with no forwards or backs. It's also the new guidance from the RFU who ahve closely observed New Zealand's grassroots developments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
eldanielfire wrote:
Raggs wrote:
I don't see how having a structure stunts development to be honest. It helps teach them where they should in general be looking to be. Forwards should be in carrying positions more often than not, backs should be spanning the width of the pitch. Planning out every phase is a problem, but having a basic structure to play within is surely essential?


At young age you develop players better by training with no forwards or backs. It's also the new guidance from the RFU who ahve closely observed New Zealand's grassroots developments.


That makes sense, I do presume that they still need to be told to spread out across the park though. Structure seems to have become a dirty word for no obvious reason in my mind.

As for a previous point you made on brain power, when talking about decision making, I was also talking about the wingers yelling inside that there's an overlap or fatties on the fringes, to be taken advantage of, long before they have to worry about catching the ball. Everyone should be communicating if there's mismatches of one sort or another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22436
Raggs wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Raggs wrote:
I don't see how having a structure stunts development to be honest. It helps teach them where they should in general be looking to be. Forwards should be in carrying positions more often than not, backs should be spanning the width of the pitch. Planning out every phase is a problem, but having a basic structure to play within is surely essential?


At young age you develop players better by training with no forwards or backs. It's also the new guidance from the RFU who ahve closely observed New Zealand's grassroots developments.


That makes sense, I do presume that they still need to be told to spread out across the park though. Structure seems to have become a dirty word for no obvious reason in my mind.

As for a previous point you made on brain power, when talking about decision making, I was also talking about the wingers yelling inside that there's an overlap or fatties on the fringes, to be taken advantage of, long before they have to worry about catching the ball. Everyone should be communicating if there's mismatches of one sort or another.



yeah, but no structure I do mean they must spread out. All positions like 9 and 10 are acting positions, whomever is closest takes the role. I also demand no one bar the scrum half is directly behind the ruck. Kids tend to bunch up behind the ball and ball watch in their early Rugby days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
Out of spite one year I decided we'd have no plays, structure, sequences, whatever when I started coaching a high school team and a veteran player asked: "What plays are we going to run?" in an indoor training session three months before the start of the season! (School rugby doesn't start until April here due to the snow, but many will do some indoor sessions after Christmas hols.)

So I said "None!" because it was too early to be thinking about it when their passing skills needed a lot of work, but I stuck to it just to see. Long story short, we ended up winning the city champs and missed out on a provincial berth when - and I take the blame for not recognising this as a possibility - many went away from our 'plan' and played conservatively in the qualifying playoff match.

But they averaged something like 5-6s tries a game in the league and in tournaments doing this:

a) two passes away from a well-defended / congested ruck because (as the players themselves identified) we had lots of fast players and not a lot of size
b) if the ruck is not well defended, then playing tight is fine because easy linebreaks from picking on poor or disorganised defenders is our aim

I call it an heuristic more than a 'structure'. It can't be random, though. Young players must work on - as we did - a lot of small unit play and learn / test out the fundamentals of play such as pass timing, timing of run, angles, getting into and following up with support, specific communication.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 1528
eldanielfire wrote:
clydecloggie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


I wouldn't take the extreme position. At U10, U12, if you don't give any structure at all, all the players will be within 5m of the ball. At best you'll get an all-in maul, but more likely the team that has the basic structure of holding an attacking line will run rings around you. So some structure is needed, you want to cover as much space as you can with your team. Once that basic structure is in place, you can then let them identify and exploit opportunities themselves. But even this benefits from giving them structured formats to use in their exploitation of opportunities: pick&go, scissor passes, crash ball, loop passes etc. all start with players being in the right position to execute the move.

So yes to structure, no to robotic game plans where everyone has a set task to do.


By no structure I mean they should still be in a line or a diagonal as per attack or defense but no set positions after that. I frequently train various games where it's simple, 2 to a ruck and the next is scrum half, all the rest dependent where they are.


But that's already a structure. It's not black and white, it's shades of grey and every coach will try and hit the sweet spot of the right shade of grey, which will be different for all of them. Some like very dark Eddie Jones / Joe Schmidt grey, others fancy a pale grey Gregor Townsend shade.

And as for developing players better - the key thing is enjoyment and even at 10 or 11 years old some players really don't fancy a berth on the wing or a go in the front row. I'm happy to oblige. So my teams do have a general distinction between forwards and backs, and a nominated scrum half, with some players always in the same category and others on the merry-go-round between positions from one game to the next.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14574
Raggs wrote:
I don't see how having a structure stunts development to be honest. It helps teach them where they should in general be looking to be. Forwards should be in carrying positions more often than not, backs should be spanning the width of the pitch. Planning out every phase is a problem, but having a basic structure to play within is surely essential?


Yeah, but when in the last 100 years have the backs not been in a backline across the pitch? You don't need to teach kids gridiron plays to give them that kind of structure. It's ridiculous to give kids a playbook designed to counter pro defences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
RodneyRegis wrote:
Raggs wrote:
I don't see how having a structure stunts development to be honest. It helps teach them where they should in general be looking to be. Forwards should be in carrying positions more often than not, backs should be spanning the width of the pitch. Planning out every phase is a problem, but having a basic structure to play within is surely essential?


Yeah, but when in the last 100 years have the backs not been in a backline across the pitch? You don't need to teach kids gridiron plays to give them that kind of structure. It's ridiculous to give kids a playbook designed to counter pro defences.


I've not argued that at any point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14574
But this thread is about those sorts of plays, and people are bemoaning the fact that kids are learning them. That's the sort of structure people are criticising, not backs in a backline.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 31910
Location: Perth
Nieghorn wrote:
I find it extremely worrying that youth teams are running these patterns and systems. They're not seeing anywhere near the same level of defence that the pros are, and the coach is effectively taking away decision making and not asking them to read the defence.

I did an assessment of a team that only does 1-3-3-1 last year and looking at what the forwards did...

Quote:
1st Half – 28 carries for 13 metres (0.78 metres per carry; longest 5; 18 carries 0 metres or behind the original territory gained)
2nd Half – 37 carries for 57 metres (1.54 metres per carry; longest 8; 12 carries for 0 metres or behind the original territory gained)



I truly believe the opportunity is there to be more creative and dynamic in attack, even with the structured defences that exist. Most of the pods do nothing by crash it up or play out the back and it's painfully obvious what's going to happen by their body language. I think the ABs are the best because it's not always so clear. Their forwards are much more skilled and dynamic than anyone else so defenders are often caught in two minds.

But it's safer for teams not so good to play 41 phases and hit a drop goal to win a match, if they don't eventually win a penalty that goes between the sticks or into the corner.


Outstanding post!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5870
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
clydecloggie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


I wouldn't take the extreme position. At U10, U12, if you don't give any structure at all, all the players will be within 5m of the ball. At best you'll get an all-in maul, but more likely the team that has the basic structure of holding an attacking line will run rings around you. So some structure is needed, you want to cover as much space as you can with your team. Once that basic structure is in place, you can then let them identify and exploit opportunities themselves. But even this benefits from giving them structured formats to use in their exploitation of opportunities: pick&go, scissor passes, crash ball, loop passes etc. all start with players being in the right position to execute the move.

So yes to structure, no to robotic game plans where everyone has a set task to do.


Who's a forward or back at u10? Give them the skills to do everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2950
Nieghorn wrote:
I find it extremely worrying that youth teams are running these patterns and systems. They're not seeing anywhere near the same level of defence that the pros are, and the coach is effectively taking away decision making and not asking them to read the defence.



It's an interesting point. The young forwards (especially loosies) I play with can definitely look a little lost if play becomes unstructured. We play a common system with four tight forwards in the middle and with 2 forwards on each flank; which is so very different to how I grew up learning the game, ahem, in the 90s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
towny wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
I find it extremely worrying that youth teams are running these patterns and systems. They're not seeing anywhere near the same level of defence that the pros are, and the coach is effectively taking away decision making and not asking them to read the defence.

I did an assessment of a team that only does 1-3-3-1 last year and looking at what the forwards did...

Quote:
1st Half – 28 carries for 13 metres (0.78 metres per carry; longest 5; 18 carries 0 metres or behind the original territory gained)
2nd Half – 37 carries for 57 metres (1.54 metres per carry; longest 8; 12 carries for 0 metres or behind the original territory gained)



I truly believe the opportunity is there to be more creative and dynamic in attack, even with the structured defences that exist. Most of the pods do nothing by crash it up or play out the back and it's painfully obvious what's going to happen by their body language. I think the ABs are the best because it's not always so clear. Their forwards are much more skilled and dynamic than anyone else so defenders are often caught in two minds.

But it's safer for teams not so good to play 41 phases and hit a drop goal to win a match, if they don't eventually win a penalty that goes between the sticks or into the corner.


Outstanding post!



Cheers! :)


Murdoch, same here. I was never told where to stand and remember when 'pods' first started creeping into the lingo (maybe early 00s in my neck of the woods). Players wasted good quick-ball time getting themselves organised and I just wasn't a fan.

As a forward, I remembered hitting the defensive line in waves timing our runs to the point when the SH just about had his hands on the ball so we could get a pop or a wider pass close to the defence. Last I remember seeing that done well was Japan pre-Eddie (was Kirwan the coach in 2011?) and figured they did it because they had to. (This sort of thing, which I think is clearly a pre-planned sequence: https://youtu.be/PqxEA_f1Tgw)

Now - and I think partially because the ball is being slowed down and maybe also because not enough players are clearing out effectively - forwards are stood still waiting for the ball to come out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 6890
Will check out the video later but settled for reading some of the comments. Thx for making this sort of thread, genuinely what I sign up on an online forum for.

Structure was always going to become the next version of Rugby. Where it was all about want and 'the team' and values beyond the field and exciting vibrant talent etc before, now defenses are tighter than ever, athletes huger than ever so on, you need structure to simply survive (or someone else will in your stead).
A good soldier is worth more than a virtuoso talent atm, and a mere orderly army more than an assembled battalion of geniuses.
Structure=winning. When it wasn't necessarily true in the past.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
Again, call me old fashioned, but I don't find exciting in the least.

I was happy to drop my love for American football (played it all through school) when I discovered rugby because I was hooked by the free-flowing, seemingly random but insightful play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19811
Nieghorn wrote:
Again, call me old fashioned, but I don't find exciting in the least.

I was happy to drop my love for American football (played it all through school) when I discovered rugby because I was hooked by the free-flowing, seemingly random but insightful play.


But isn't this where modern rugby is moving towards with "phase play" where decisions are made realtime rather prescripted? That's how I understand what's being said in the video anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 731
Haven't watched the video but excellent thread.
I've always felt even before the advent of heaps o tv time that 1stxv rugby was first base for All Black dominance. The last few years, probably quite a few, the Auckland 1A comp has been held up as the toughest in the country. But watching it the games have become way more structured and professional than previously, much more so than the games seen from teams outside of this comp.
Two facts to then add to this. One, these same 1stxv don't dominate the Top Four competition disputed a huge numerical and financial advantage, two Auckland rugby at NPC and Blues level is not dominant. Perhaps even a third, that lots of our most admired players didn't grow up playing in this structured environment.
Basic rugby structure is good, but learning free flowing enjoyment and self belief trumps pods and other shit. Allowing kids to find their own place on the field is important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19811
An interesting look at the Scotland England game

Quote:
Summary
Of the five fully-competitive teams in the Six Nations, two (Wales and Scotland) have effectively become New Zealand/Northern Hemisphere hybrids geared to play their best rugby in ‘organised chaos’. The other three remain firmly on structured turf, although both Ireland and England are both set up to adapt to chaos in specific circumstances.

The ebb and flow of power between the two philosophies has been fascinating to watch over the past few weeks. In a sense, Scotland finished the chances Wales were able to create but could not convert against England at Murrayfield.

Wales, meanwhile, nearly upset Ireland on a meagre 30 per cent diet of possession, creating one clean break for every six rucks they built, compared to Ireland’s one in 13 ratio.

All of which will interest the All Blacks greatly as they prepare for their showdown with England on November 10. New Zealand are the experts at both locating and playing through organised chaos, in situations where their advantage in individual skill-sets can be seen to its best effect.

When the two teams collide in the autumn, it will not just be a battle between (at the time of speaking) the number one and number two ranked sides in the world, it will be a clash of philosophies about how to play the game of rugby and a definite clue to the future evolution of the game.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2018/03/07/foretaste-blacks-scotland-broke-england-defence-murrayfield/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32365
message #2527204 wrote:
clydecloggie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


I wouldn't take the extreme position. At U10, U12, if you don't give any structure at all, all the players will be within 5m of the ball. At best you'll get an all-in maul, but more likely the team that has the basic structure of holding an attacking line will run rings around you. So some structure is needed, you want to cover as much space as you can with your team. Once that basic structure is in place, you can then let them identify and exploit opportunities themselves. But even this benefits from giving them structured formats to use in their exploitation of opportunities: pick&go, scissor passes, crash ball, loop passes etc. all start with players being in the right position to execute the move.

So yes to structure, no to robotic game plans where everyone has a set task to do.


Who's a forward or back at u10? Give them the skills to do everything.


Best to interchange young players at intervals, to get to learn more skills/skill requirements. A bit more interesting and adventurous, too, and the true rugby ball players soon stand out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 1528
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
clydecloggie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I agree. Unstructured youth plans are how you develop players. let them work it out (with some shouting to 'direct' their focus from the sidelines) learn to organise in different ways, work out how to create space and attack space that opens up and be game aware, which is way more important. By the time the youth players grow up the structure is out of date anyway.

I really enjoy 1014 site, but I take what they say and publish with a pinch of salt as I find any insight they gain, they can treat almost religiously and repeat it to infinity.


I wouldn't take the extreme position. At U10, U12, if you don't give any structure at all, all the players will be within 5m of the ball. At best you'll get an all-in maul, but more likely the team that has the basic structure of holding an attacking line will run rings around you. So some structure is needed, you want to cover as much space as you can with your team. Once that basic structure is in place, you can then let them identify and exploit opportunities themselves. But even this benefits from giving them structured formats to use in their exploitation of opportunities: pick&go, scissor passes, crash ball, loop passes etc. all start with players being in the right position to execute the move.

So yes to structure, no to robotic game plans where everyone has a set task to do.


Who's a forward or back at u10? Give them the skills to do everything.


Best to interchange young players at intervals, to get to learn more skills/skill requirements. A bit more interesting and adventurous, too, and the true rugby ball players soon stand out.


Enjoyment trumps development for me. I'm not the first link in the chain to an international cap. I'm a guy who's there to give loads of kids a good time on a rugby pitch. For 90% of them that means doing everything and finding their way to the best position. But I have 4 guys in my U12 s who are happiest doing one thing (a prop, a scrum half, a full back and a hooker). So they play there every game and get better at it every game. And have a blast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32365
:thumbup:

We play for enjoyment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 148
Location: Lahndon
I'm coaching U13s in England and we have introduced some structure this season and it has been a positive addition. We have an attacking structure and we have a structure that we can use when we have slow ruck ball and we have one for free passes.

The important thing is that the players decide when to use them and call them. For the attacking play, the 10 has 3 or 4 options and he has to decide which to take based on what he sees in the defence. After that, and at other times, they just play without a pattern.

For me, the pattern has been important in the player's development in that they have to scan the defensive line and make good decisions. This has meant that in open play they are doing the same, spotting weak defenders, misaligned defenders and overlaps and exploiting them. They are all seeing that and running lines off the ball have improved.

We have practised all of these skills over the years but it has really set them free in matches and they look very sharp.

This is their first year of junior rugby and the development has been astonishing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
Wasps u16s certainly look like they're having fun, and not scared to play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oZrbc7J4l8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22055
Nieghorn wrote:
It probably shouldn't be surprising, but an American coaches group on facebook I belong to just LOVE that stuff (and there have been non-Yanks talking about how they use it as well ... Arg, Irish, Brit in Europe, iirc.)

As I said on the League thread, I think the next stage will be more complex defensive tactics - like how NFL teams will try a high-risk/reward blitz to get a sack - that will effectively kill the out-the-back play, making those forward decoy runners (i.e. often legalized blockers) go somewhere more useful. I think the most dynamic teams that aren't just going for the obvious crash ball - like, oh I don't know, the All Blacks and Kiwi sides in general - can unlock any defence because pretty much all of their players are carrying and passing threats. That's all you've ever needed to cause defenders to be sucked in, miss-read, over-read, over-commit, under-commit, etc. etc.



They’re already doing something like it. It’s called the ‘super-rush’.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2018/03/07/fo ... rrayfield/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22396
Location: Centre of the Universe
I've noticed this from Farrell and Joseph especially, but they leave themselves very thin and Scotland ripped them a new one (as shown in the clips).

I didn't watch enough games to know if it was part of a plan or just his individual quest, but when Manoa played for Northampton there were more measured examples. He seemed not to be a necessary brick in the main defensive wall, but a freelancer who'd fly up and smash someone as he read the opportunity to do so (at least, an idea I had - getting your team spread out so someone without an individual to cover could safely shoot up and smash / go for the intercept)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4R-vOcZ57s

At this level, unfortunately, teams are allowed to get into body positions and collapse rucks with croc rolls killing the chance to counter-ruck, but that's something I want my team to do more of this season. I think the other 'gamble' that can be taken is to flood a bunch of players into the breakdown to win a counter ruck. Scotland's were just clever taking on of one player who wasn't expecting it, but I'm talking about sending in four guys against two who are. You'd want to do that when the ball's not at the back and when the tackle was behind the gain line, but I'd love to see more of an actual contest at the breakdown like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Boobs not Moobs, Brazil, Dairymilk, duke, feckwanker, Fenman, Flyin Ryan, frankster, Google Adsense [Bot], handyman, juddy, Keith, koroke hangareka, Leinster in London, lorcanoworms, Lorthern Nights, MunsterMan!!!!!, Mustapha, nardol, piquant, PornDog, Ramming Speed, redderneck, rfurlong, Rinkals, sewa, tazman77, The Man Without Fear, The Sun God, Turbogoat, Ulsters Red Hand, wsurfa, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group